Disposed

Baliaya v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Jan 2016WP/31909/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a government notice fixing land acquisition compensation. Finding that the petitioner alleged uninspected buildings were omitted from the valuation, the Court rejected quashing the notice but directed a live appearance, document submission, and subsequent field inspection to determine fair compensation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to appear and submit documents; direction to Respondent-2 to conduct inspection and determine compensation within four weeks.

Baliaya Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No.31909 of 2015

¶6

Baliaya ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Thiruvallore Thiruvallore District. 2. The District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority (L.A) The National Highways Kancheepuram & Thiruvallore Dist. at camp office Poonamallee Thiruvallore District. 3. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Shree Towers III floor Developed Plots No.34 South Phase Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. [ R-3 is suo-motu impleaded as per Order Dated:08.10.2015 in WP. 31909/2015] ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 06.04.2015 in Na.Ka.462/2013/A/The.No.5 dated 4/2015 of the 2nd respondent quash the same and direct the respondents herein to either to drop the acquisition proceedings of the petitioner's land S.No. 161/1A of an extent of 200 sq.mts. (ii) S.No.161/2A of an extent of 100 sq.mts. and (iii) S.No.164/8A1 of an extent of 21.sq mts with building thereon to an extent of 2084 sq.ft

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

with fixtures and amenities in Peruvoyal village (Pudhuvotal I), Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District or to determine the compensation for the same including taking note of the value of existing buildings thereon.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar -R1 & R2 Additional Government Pleader

¶12

Mr.Richardson - R3

¶13

for M/s P.Wilson Associates

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.Richardson, learned counsel accepting notice for the third respondent and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2.The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the notice issued by the second respondent dated 06.04.2015, in and by which the petitioner has been directed to appear before the second respondent and produce necessary documents so as to collect the compensation which has been fixed by the second respondent.

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the land has not been properly inspected and the constructions which are existing in the land have not been taken note of and the fixation of compensation as done in the impugned notice is contrary to the procedure prescribed under section 3-B of the National Highways Act, 1956. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the building has not been assessed for compensation, which shows that no proper inspection was conducted.

¶18

4.Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner being a person who has lost his property is entitled for just and fair compensation. Since the lands have been acquired, the second respondent should consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner while arriving at the compensation payable to the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

petitioner. Therefore, it is essential that proper inspection is conducted in the property especially when the petitioner states that there was a building in the property which was not assessed for compensation. In any event, the impugned order is only a notice and in my view, the determination done by the second respondent in the impugned notice in paragraph 2 can only be a tentative determination.

¶21

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the second respondent along with necessary documents, who shall conduct fresh inspection and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

6.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also does not oppose to this methodology to be adopted by the second respondent.

¶23

7.In the light of the above, without setting aside the impugned notice, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the second respondent with all documents in support of his claim, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioner appearing before the second respondent and producing the necessary documents, the second respondent shall conduct inspection of the property, after notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and after inspection, determine the compensation payable, within a period of four weeks from the date of which the petitioner submits the documents.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶25

rpa

¶26

¶27

The District Collector Thiruvallore Thiruvallore District.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

The District Revenue Officer
cum Competent Authority (L.A)
The National Highways
Kancheepuram & Thiruvallore Dist.
at camp office Poonamallee
Thiruvallore District.
3. The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India Shree
Towers III floor
Developed Plots
No.34 South Phase
Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.11
+1cc to M/s.P.Wilson Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.70
W.P. No.31909 of 2015
NM(CO)
CA(20/01/2016)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Baliaya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliaya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

M/s.Chennai Radha Engineering Vs Executive Engineer

J.Suryakanth Vs Chennai Metropolitan

K.M.Balusamy Vs S.N.Raja

K.Sumathi Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Ramya Timbers Vs The State of Tamil Nadu